I received a very interesting veiled threat letter from Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security addressed to all police chiefs and sheriffs around the country.

His letter made it clear that if Congress didn’t send President Obama the DHS funding bill that he wanted (rubberstamping the president’s executive amnesty), local and state public safety agencies would not receive federal grants they were counting on because the president would veto the DHS funding bill.

Let me get this straight – the president believes he has the authority to nullify federal laws that don’t serve his personal agenda, but if Congress dares to exercise it’s responsibility of controlling the purse strings, he will willingly hold public safety grants hostage just to get his way?

We know that Obama is a rather feckless and vindictive President. If this report is true, it can be stacked on the stack of evidence that proves that very point.

We obviously need to introduce the notion of fiscal responsibility to Congress. There are so many programs and items that are funded by the federal government that need to be sent back to the states, districts, or counties to fund. Whenever Congress, federal and local governments propose spending our money and raising taxes Congress, teachers, and government officials need to ask themselves at least this one question: Is this item or monetary increase absolutely necessary that it is a must to require my neighbor, friends, and family to reach down deeper in their pockets and pay more in taxes?

Confused by the title? Well, there is a reason for it. Once central assertion is that much of the Obama administration’s policies concerning health care are part of a larger Cloward-Piven type strategy. For those of you that might be new to all of this, the Cloward-Piven strategy is name after two leftists, one of which, Francis Fox Piven, is still living. The strategy is rather simple. The idea is to target a system (the original system targeted welfare), and put never ending levels of stress on it until it breaks. Then, the system falling apart creates a crisis, which requires more government as a solution. So, to achieve change, you break something so badly, that the resulting “crisis” justifies more government spending, intervention, and most importantly, power. So, let’s take a look at how our would-be regressive masters are using health care, and Medicare in particular, to break health care.

Medicare hasn’t seen an increase to payments in 15 years. Obama took $700 billion plus out of future payments to Medicare doctors and hospitals to “pay for” the free Obamacare.

Costs go up all the time to provide services, but the income has not. And, it’s an intentional thing.

If Doctors don’t even break even treating Medicare patients, they have no incentive to see them, and. a greater incentive to reject them.

In three years, the number of health professionals rejecting Medicare has tripled! Others are limiting the number of Medicare patients they take in.

Currently, 9,539 physicians who had accepted Medicare opted out of the program in 2012, up from 3,700 in 2009. That compares with 685,000 doctors who were enrolled as participating physicians in Medicare last year.

Note that this has gotten even worse in Obama’s Presidency, and since the passage of ObamaCare, it surviving it’s legal challenges, and Obama’s re-election. And why should Doctors trust Medicare, Obama took hundreds of millions out of it to fund ObamaCare.

So, stagnant reimbursement, and taking it’s funding for ObamaCare is creating a scenario in which no one wants to treat Medicare patients. This will cause a crisis. Of course, the government will step in to save the elderly from the problems that government created in the first place. First, they will blame someone else for the problem, and then, they will propose more of the same as the solution!

Oh, and for the title? Medicare is a huge part of the medical care delivery system in the US. With the population growing, it will continue to grow. So, if you want to kill of the health care industry, you have to collapse Medicare. To essentially make it suck is a great way to make that happen. Doctors will avoid it, patients will have a hard time getting care. People will complain. The MSM will show us tearjerkers about how granny is suffering, and it’s all because of…

Not the government, but greedy doctors!

New government regulations will be needed to take care of this government induced program. Of course, that will fail too, but thge regressives will blame yet someone else.

If you let the government control your health care, they can start making and justifying all sorts of demands. Like, for example, maybe they can regulate what you ear-even the junk food! Gateway Pundit has more…

Larry Summers, chair of the White House National Economic Council when the 2009 stimulus was developed, suggested that President Obama will eventually tax and regulate junk food to drive people to eat more healthily — although he dinged First Lady Michelle Obama’s healthy foods initiative.

“I think there is no question that the way Americans eat and what Americans weigh is a big contributor to health problems and it’s a big contributor to health costs,” Summers said on Morning Joe today.It’s not the agenda now, but I think at some point you’re going to see tax measures and regulatory measures that are going to be directed at helping people be healthier. That’s just going to happen and I think it’s probably a good thing when it does.”

Summers this agenda to anti-cigarette policies. “[J]ust as we have over time done things with respect to tobacco that are very constructive and that are saving hundreds of thousands of people’s lives, that kind of agenda is going to come to other aspects of public health, including the way people eat,” he said.

Curiously, though, Summers took an oblique shot at the results of Mrs. Obama’s overhaul of the school lunch menu as part of her effort to fight child obesity.

“Should kids be going hungry at lunch because they can’t have any good food — any food they like in the schools?” he asked rhetorically. “You can obviously take it too far and you have to be careful.”

Again, just to be clear, no legislation has been proposed for this. However, the idea is clear. When the government provides something to you, they are them justified in addressing anything that potentially impacts what they are funding. If they pay for health care, and you are fat, they will tell you what to eat. Got it?

A long term criticism of social programs, especially the entitlements, has been the massive waste associated with them. Recently, a report was released that shows that if Welfare spending was concentrated, each family in poverty over $59,000 each. CNS News has more…

According to a report from the CRS produced for Sen. Jeff Sessions(R-Ala.), $1 trillion was spent on federal welfare programs during fiscal year 2011 – with $746 billion in federal funds and $254 in state matching funds.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that there were approximately 16.8 million households living below the federal poverty level of $23,000 per year for a family of four in 2011. ( See: 2011 Households Below Poverty 2011.pdf)

If each of the estimated 16.8 million households with income below the poverty level were to have received an equal share of the total welfare spending for fiscal year 2011, they each would have received $59,523.

Um, that’s more than my salary. Not only that, does the assistance that they receive equal that amount? I doubt it. However, I think the following, from the same article, sums it up nicely…

In other words, if the government were to discontinue its myriad federal welfare programs, such as housing vouchers, food stamps, and Medicaid, and instead just wrote every poor household a check, it would nearly quadruple their income: increasing it from at most $23,000 per year to nearly $83,000 per year.

BB:Luca Brasi. He’s kind of Sesame Street’s enforcer. It’s a dangerous world and Big Bird has to look out after his interests. Luca…..Luca, come over here. I have a job for you. [Luca Brasi enters]

LB:Don Big Bird,

I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to Sesame Street on the wedding day of your daughter. And may their first child be a masculine child.

MI: What the hell’s he talking about?

BB:I don’t know. He’s been going on like that for years. Listen Luca, this guy here wants to cut my funding. You know what to do, don’t you?

LB:Cut his horse’s head off? Cut his throat?

BB: That’ll do for starters.

MI: Wait a minute. I don’t want to cut your funding. I’m a member of the mainstream media. I work for the Democrats. We want to increase your funding.

LB:Manhattan Infidel, you have crossed Big Bird. And one thing must be understood. I would never go against the Godfather. Big Bird is a man I respect. [He throws a horse’s head at Manhattan Infidel.]

MI:What the? I don’t even own a horse. Where’d you get that?

BB:We keep extras just in case. Now take him out back Luca and kill him!

MI:Wait….wait…you can’t kill me. I have friends. Friends in high places. They will come looking for me.

[Manhattan Infidel is dragged kicking and screaming out of the room.]

MI: No! No! Tell Olivia Wilde I love her!

BB:F*cking punk.

The blogger known as Manhattan Infidel has mysteriously disappeared. If anyone reading this knows of his whereabouts, well keep it to yourselves, Capish? Now why don’t you behave yourselves. F*cking punks.

In the interest of sanity, I felt compelled to find something up-lifting to write about today. In spite of the left stream Media’s consistent predictions of an Obama win in November, the reports of Romney’s political death are premature. I think it is not out of the realm of possibilities that Mitt Romney will win by a landslide. A landslide to me would have Romney at 55%, Obama at 41%, and Gary Johnson at 4%. believe it or not, I have some support for being so optimistic.

A dear commenter here at CoF left a link to this Business Insider article that claims Romney has a big October surprise planned for President Obama.

This is what people are still not grasping about Romney: He’s about to open up the money floodgates in a way that Obama can’t match.

[…]

Both Romney and Obama have been fundraising consistently for months. But Romney has kept his head down and his account flush, and didn’t try to compete with the Olympics, the Conventions, or the recent mediocre press. He was competent enough to realize that the Obama campaign had to hemorrhage cash in order to maintain their numbers.

And now, he’s got a massive upper hand, which very few people are talking about. Once he and his surrogates carpet bomb the swing states with adverts, by shear mathematics Obama will take a small but predictable dive in the polls. In the middle of October, Mitt starts looking like a contender again.

We conservatives know and accept that the media is in the tank for Obama and they are going to continue covering for his failures and try to convince voters that a Romney presidency would be a disaster for the middle class. Also, we tend to think that the polls claiming a very tight race or Obama ahead are intentionally biased toward Obama. But, maybe there is a different explanation of the polls. This article at examiner.com reports on an organization called UnSkewedPolls. The folks at UnSewedPolls say that the companies doing the polling are using a 2008 model of the voter breakdown between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. They claim that when these poll results are unskewed to reflect today’s break down of voters, the results look very different.

So, not as big a spread as I am predicting, But 7.8% is not too shabby. And, I have more supporting evidence of a big Romney win. A moth ago I bookmarked a John Hayward article at Human Events. He tells us about a couple of professor at the University of Colorado that have an amazing track record of predicting electoral college results.

Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races. Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980. According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

This year, the Bickers-Berry model shows Mitt Romney winning with 320 electoral votes to Obama’s 218, with a 20-vote margin of error. A popular vote margin of 53-47 percent in Romney’s favor is predicted.

I could live with those results! And then there is this article at American Thinker that may help explain why Obama is going to lose big time.

When Barack Obama suddenly changed his position on gay marriage, many people (including me) predicted that this could have a dampening effect on black turnout, because many black churches take their Scripture quite seriously. It might be too much to expect black pastors to urge their flocks to vote for a Republican (and Mormon) candidate, but staying home and not voting might well be an option to protest the discarding of a bedrock tenet of faith.

The Associated Press is now reporting that this scenario may indeed be developing:

So, cheer up, folks. Obama is toast! I am so up beat that tomorrow I am going to be so bold as to offer some advice to President Romney. and, here is a suggestion for you, dear friends. Share a little fruitcake with Jimmy Buffett. It’ll make you feel better.

It seems that the Union bosses are pulling the plug on team Obama for 2012. Is it due to the fact that the DNC and Obama threw the unions under the bus in Wisconsin? The Lid has more…

The AFL-CIO has told USA News and World Report that it’s moving money from political candidates even though its right in the middle of election season. This represents another blow to the Obama campaign which is already way behind its fundraising goals. The labor union says this shift was planned for a long time and has nothing to do with the fact that Barack Obama was too busy to visit Wisconsin during the recall battle.

“We wanted to start investing our funds in our own infrastructure and advocacy,” AFL-CIO spokesman Josh Goldstein told Whispers. “There will be less contributions to candidates,” including President Obama.

While there were “a lot of different opinions” about whether Obama should have gone to Wisconsin, according to Goldstein, “this is not a slight at the president.”

The AFL-CIO has been at odds with the president before Wisconsin on issues such as the public health insurance option and renewing the Bush tax cuts.

The shift in funding is significant due to the federation’s role in past presidential campaigns, where the AFL-CIO built up a massive political structure in the months leading up the election, including extensive “Get Out The Vote” efforts, as well as financial contributions.

This time around, Goldstein says, the federation wants to build a more long-lasting structure, giving “different kinds of support to different candidates.”

Goldstein clarifies that in the new deployment of funds, “Some candidates will get more, some less, some the same — but overall we’ll be focused more on spending resources to build our own structure [that] works for working people instead of others’ own structures.”

So then, there are a number of thoughts as to what the unions might do with different “structures.”

1. More goons to intimidate businesses, politicians, and the like, as well as to attack anyone with a camera.

2. More rent-a-mob to make them look far more influential than they really are.

3. More pre-printed signs, shirts, and banners. Because nothing say “grassroots” like spending a ton of money on signs, shirts and hats!

If have noticed a whiff of sarcasm, your olfactory senses are spot on. These bosses, while well funded, are Alinkyites, and pretty uninspired ones at that. In other words, they aren’t going to do much that is new, but a lot that is old-just more of it. They’re going lie more, intimidate more, and beat up more people. And, when they do more of it, they is going to be more and more examples of their thuggery to show the world. Basically, they are going to turn the fail up to “11.”

Top labor leaders say they expect to spend more than ever on both state and federal contests this year. And if recent elections are any indicator, unions could drop more than $450 million, which they reportedly doled out in the 2008 election.…

1. The unions are stretched pretty thin this year. They spent millions in 2010 to protect their regressive allies in office, and took a drubbing at the polls. Last year, they spent millions in Wisconsin and Ohio, trying to undo laws, and prompting recall elections. They have to be stretched quite a bit with the constant funding for attacks on Conservatives.

Over the past year, several states – including Wisconsin, Tennessee and Idaho – have passed legislation freeing teachers from the shackles of compulsory union membership.

Now that membership has become voluntary, a growing number of teachers are choosing to quit the union, which is causing hard times for the nation’s largest teachers union.

A new report finds the National Education Association has revised its membership numbers downward – from 3.2 million to just over 3 million.

According to Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency website, the hemorrhaging of members is contributing to the NEA’s $17 million deficit, which may force union leaders to lay off employees and cut aid to state affiliates.

So, they are already stressed by their previous spending, and are even laying off their own workers.

So then, what if it wasn’t several states, but ten, or fifteen, or even twenty? What if they lost 20-30% of their memberships, because they rank and file could CHOOSE whether or not they wanted to be in a union, or pay dues? What could the unions do then? There is where the opportunity lies. But instead, the Stupid Party seems to do the following; they go one at a time, or a few at time, and the others (who might contemplate acting) sit back, wringing their hands nervously, awaiting what will happen with the few that try. Then, the unions are able to focus their maximum force (funds, ads, goons, and the like) on the few. Then, the others either try piecemeal (and get equally mauled), or are scared off entirely. This is what Rommel exploited in North Africa, when he famously told a captured British officer…

“What difference does it make if you have two tanks to my one, when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?”

As I described in my January post, What can Conservatives Learn From Erwin Rommel? We would benefit from hitting the opposition with overwhelming force, from multiple directions. Maybe we can’t be Rommel, but we certainly can be Montgomery, who was a master at the war of attrition.

All it takes is some vision,with a comprehensive, and coordinated plan. States would not have to do the exact same thing, but do what is right, given their own situation. Some might make dues voluntary. Others might pass a Right to Work law. Still others might reform pensions and health care contributions. No matter the exact reform, they need to happen as close together as possible. Even if not every initiative or vote is won, enough will be taken to free more and more workers from the union trap, and at the same time, weaken the union bosses.

Can anyone else see this? If some small blogger can see this, why can’t anyone in the Stupid Party?

Obama’s latest budget includes a $5.00 per bag charge for TSA to screen out luggage.The Daily Mail reported:

The cost of travel will take off if President Obama’s budget is approved out of hand because he plans to add fees to passengers and take away existing grants to airports in an effort to reduce the deficit.

In his budget put forth Monday, the President mapped out a way to accrue $32billion for the government over the next decade.

The Obama administration wants major carriers, their passengers, business jets and airports to pick up more of the costs of air travel and airport improvements that for years have been borne by taxpayers.

…

Ideas quietly floated and then discarded during congressional budget negotiations last summer re-emerged in the fiscal 2013 transportation and homeland security portions of the White House budget sent to Congress that outlines $4trillion in deficit reduction.Under the proposal, ticket fees that help pay for passenger and bag security screening at more than 400 U.S. airports would double to a mandatory minimum of $5 per one-way trip.

The fee would jump 50 cents per year beginning in 2014, raising the total to $7.50 in 2018.

I know that some of you are wondering, “This is yet another despicable fee, but how is it illegal?” Dear reader, it is simple. If you go anywhere in the US (with the exception of certain parts of Nevada), and pay someone $5.00 to fondle your genitals, you will be arrested. Well, maybe you won’t be arrested, but it would still be illegal. I fail to see how the TSA is any different.

When I am not thinking about Quantum physics or working on my latest translation of the poems of Li Bai, I often contemplate the nature of the beast. The beast of course is the progressive in America. Occasionally I have an epiphany, something that strikes me like a lightning bolt and makes me say “Of course!” (no Eureka! here, I am not suggesting my new idea is unique to me), this happened to me last night while I was watching MST3K’s version of Hamlet, I should note the stroke of insight was not attributable to Mike and his robots only in that the episode was so boring my mind was left to mull over other things.

So what was the epiphanous moment fleece? It relates to how progressives seek change. As a conservative, I am a fairly logical person. I look at the world around me and see what is wrong with it, and I can usually determine the reasons for the ills and can logically discern a method of correcting the problem. I believe most conservatives, and in fact most people, are this way. Maybe some people don’t do it so cerebrally, it is more a gut feeling, but the conclusions are the same. The progressive does not view the world this way. They see the world as an opportunity. The problems we face as a society are not something to be fixed, they are reasons to implement pieces of the “grand strategy”. If fixing the problem is a happy by-product, all the better, but that is not the goal. In fact, often the problem needs to be created in order to enable the progressive to offer the fix. Perhaps an example is in order.

Public Education

Let’s look to public education. Most normal Americans look to our public education system and can not for the life of us understand why it isn’t being fixed, or at least improved. Every year we dump more money into the system, and every year the graduation rates, the reading levels, the test scores, are either static or going down. How can this be? Because most people think of cause and effect. The progressive tackles a problem in the exact opposite, effect then cause if you will.

If the goal of the progressives in regards to public education is to create a mechanism where unlimited public finance needs to be pumped into the system on an ever-increasing yearly basis, a program where teachers unions hold a monopoly on the education system, a mechanism to ensure a paying job and benefits for the rest of their lives, what must the progressives do to make that happen? I can tell you one thing they absolutely CAN NOT do; they CAN NOT do a good job!

If they taught our children and raised the test scores, graduation rates and reading levels, then there would be no need to give them more money. If the teaching system worked, there would be no need to implement new fangled concepts like “Expeditionary Learning” or any other progressive ideas for teaching. In essence, America would cry out, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” And that is the key to the plan, the system needs to be broke. And the only way to break it, is to fail to do your job. Actually, failing to do your job is too innocuous, they are in fact purposely screwing up the education system for their own gains.

I can not contribute any more to this. It is a perfect as a blog post gets. This is only a part of the overall post. Get over to FleeceMe, or the Sentry Journal, to read the rest.

Resistance

Feed Your Mind

Tip Jar: Help Keep the CH 2.0 Going!

Ads by Google

NewsMax

Suscribe to our Email Newsletter!

Subscribe to our mailing list

CH 2.0 Search

Larwyn’s Linx

BadBlue Should be Your Aggregator of Choice

Amazon

>

The Conservative Hideout is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.